Judgment : The accused is a petty shop keeper having his provision store at D.No.157/2 Aruppukkottai Road, Virudhunagar. He was transacting business in his grocery shop on 20.9.1983; On that day, at about 8.30 a m., the Food Inspector (P.W.1) inspected the provision-store of the accused. Vanaspathi was kept in open tin for sale in the premises of the shop. He expressed his intention of taking sample of Vanaspathi to the accused. He called one witness, by name Sannasi. He agreed to be a witness for the taking of sample. He served Form VI, Ex.P2 notice to the accused. He obtained signature of the accused in Ex.P2 for the service of the notice. He purchased 500 gms. of Vanaspathi from the accused for Rs.9. The accused gave a cash receipt, Ex.P3. (ii) P.W.1, then divided the sample into three equal parts and put the sample in three clean bottles. The samples were sealed in accordance with the Rules. He sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Guindy, through railway parcel. Ex.P5 is the railway receipt for the despatch of the sample to the Public Analyst. He sent the remaining two samples to the Local Health Authority. He received the report of the Public Analyst, Ex.P10 on 24.10.1983. The Public Analyst opined that the sample contained free fat in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 68%. P.W.1, then launched prosecution by filing a complaint against the respondent/accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, under Secs.7(1) and 16(ii)(a)(1) read with Sec.2(ia)(a)(m) on 28.10.1983. (iii) On the same day, he served the notice under Sec.13(2) of the Act and also a copy of the report of the Public Analyst on the accused. Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are respectively the notice under Sec.13 (2) and the copy of the Public Analyst Report. (iv) The accused, when questioned stated that the sample that was taken by the Food Inspector on the relevant day in question was not intended for sale and it was kept by him for domestic consumption. He would further say that the sample had been taken by compulsion and consequently the same cannot be considered as sale under the provisions of this Act. He would further say that the sample had been taken by compulsion and consequently the same cannot be considered as sale under the provisions of this Act. (v) The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials produced before him and after hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the defence, came to the conclusion that the accused was not found guilty of the charges framed against him and consequently, acquitted him giving rise to this appeal, by this state. 2. The learned Magistrate, rendered the verdict of acquittal on the following grounds: (a) P.W.1, the Food Inspector did not state in his evidence that he closed the bottle with cork which is a violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. (b) P.W.1, did not also state that he tightly closed the bottle with cork which is also a violation of mandatory provision of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. (c) The total quantity of sample taken, viz., 500 gms. of Vanaspathi had been divided into three’ equal parts and they were put into three separate horlicks bottles of the capacity of 500 gms. each. The presence of air in the vacant space inside the bottle would have deteriorated the quality of the sample. (d) The sample instead of being put in a packet had in fact been put in a wooden box and sent to the Analyst for the purpose of analysis which is violation of Rule 17(a) of the Rules framed under the Act. (e) The sample that was taken from the premises of the accused was one obtained by way of compulsion and lastly. (f) The non-preparation of mahazar for the taking of the sample is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. 3. The learned Government Advocate would submit with all vehemence and force that the learned Magistrate reached an erroneous conclusion that the accused was not guilty of the charges framed against him oh the misconstruction of the various Rules as well as improper consideration of the evidence available on record. The first two grounds on which the verdict of acquittal was based by the Court below revolved on the question as to whether the provisions of Rule 14 had been complied with in the process of taking of sample for the purpose of analysis. The first two grounds on which the verdict of acquittal was based by the Court below revolved on the question as to whether the provisions of Rule 14 had been complied with in the process of taking of sample for the purpose of analysis. Rule 14 read as follows: “Manner of sending samples for analysis. Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed.” From the rule as quoted above, it is clear that the sample of food shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in suitable containers. The containers should be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture. They should be carefully sealed. The evidence of the Food Inspector (P.W.1) has to be sifted and analysed as to whether he has substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that the sample had been taken in three clean dry bottles. He divided the same into three equal parts and put them in three bottles. He closed the lids of the three bottles, in such way that there was neither leakage from the bottles nor was there any possibility of external air going into the bottles. He sealed all the three bottles. The evidence of P.W.1 of course did not disclose that he put cork in each of the bottles. The learned Magistrate would make much about the non-putting of corks in each of the bottles. Rule 14 of Rules does not at all contemplate the corking of the bottle after the sample of food is put into it. What Rule 14 of the Rules required is that the sample put into the bottle or container should be closed in such a way that there is no leakage from inside and there is no possibility of any external air going inside. What Rule 14 of the Rules required is that the sample put into the bottle or container should be closed in such a way that there is no leakage from inside and there is no possibility of any external air going inside. As such, the corking of the bottle is not at all found mentioned in Rule 14 of the Rules in such state of affairs, the non-corking of the bottle is of no consequence when especially the evidence of P.W.1 is to effect that he closed the three bottles with lids in such a way that there was neither the possibility of leakage from inside nor was the possibility of external air going inside the bottle. Therefore, the reasoning of the Magistrate on this point has to be rejected. 4. The other ground of the presence of sufficient vacant space in the bottle which could have deteriorated the quality of the sample before it was analysed by the Public Analyst is of no consequence in the circumstances of the case. No doubt true it is, in the three bottles, where the samples of Vanaspathi were put, there was vacant space to the extent of two-third of the bottle. The possibility of air being present inside that vacant space is also there. There is no material to point out that the vacant space in the bottles could have materially affected the components of the vanaspathi inside the bottles. The Public Analyst who received the sample did not at all state that the quality of the sample got deteriorated in between the date of taking of sample and the date on which it was analysed. It is also not shown by the learned counsel that the presence of air inside the bottle in the vacant space, could have materially affected the sample, thereby increasing the possibility of tatty acids to an extent beyond the standard prescribed under the Act. In such circumstances, this ground also falls to the ground. 5. Regarding the other ground of the sample having been taken by compulsion, I am of the view that the same may not improve or advance the case of the defence to any extent whatever. In such circumstances, this ground also falls to the ground. 5. Regarding the other ground of the sample having been taken by compulsion, I am of the view that the same may not improve or advance the case of the defence to any extent whatever. The evidence on record of course discloses that at the time when the sample was taken by P.W.1 from the shop of the accused, it was represented that the sample of Vanaspathi kept in the shop was not for sale and it was only for private consumption and despite that, the sample had been taken by way of compulsion. The fact remains that the sample had been taken from the premises where the accused was transacting business and he accepted the payment of price as evidence by Ex.P3. If the Vanaspathi that was kept in the shop from which sample had been taken was really for consumption in the house of the accused for the family members, the same could not have been kept in the business premises along with other items of articles for sale. The further fact is that he is a licensed vendor to deal in oils and other articles. Naturally in such a circumstances, Vanaspathi was presumed to have been kept there only for the purpose of sale to the public and not for consumption for private purposes. This apart, it is very well settled that sale to a Food Inspector is sale for all purposes under this Act. As such, this ground also merits little substance and has to be rejected. 6. The other ground revolved on the non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Rule 17 (a) of the Rules framed under the Act. The relevant portion of Rule 17(a) of the Rules reads thus: “The sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means.” The Rule no doubt states that the sealed container or one part of the sample shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means. The contravention that is alleged in the case on hand is that the Food Inspector sent the sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis in a wooden box but not in a sealed packet as contemplated under this Rule. The sending of the sample in a wooden box instead of sealed packet is contrary to the Rule and this violation, the Magistrate would say, entails the accused to the benefit of acquittal. The learned Magistrate while so observing did not appear to have applied his mind in construing the object of the provision under this Rule. The Rule has been incorporated to see that the sample that is sent to the Public Analyst is not tampered with in the course of transit. In such a case, whether this sample is sent in a sealed packet or in a wooden box duly sealed does not matter much at all. In the instant case, the sending of the sample in a wooden box duly sealed is the safest course adopted by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst received the sample intact as sent by the Food Inspector. It cannot be stated that the sending of the sample in a wooden box duly sealed could have caused any prejudice to the accused in his defence. As such, the verdict of acquittal ended in this ground also falls to the ground. 7. With regard to the question of preparation of Mahazar for taking sample, I am of the view that there is no provision under the Act stating that sample has to be taken under the cover of a mahazar. Taking of a sample cannot at all be considered as a seizing of an article from the business premises. What the Food Inspector does when he feels that the provisions of the Act had been violated by the particular dealer is, he simply takes sample of the item of food for the purpose of analysis, by serving a notice in Form VI, that too after paying the price for the same. The evidence of P.W.1, discloses that he expressed his intention of taking sample on the relevant day in question and thereafter alone he took the sample of Vanaspathi from the shop of the accused. He also paid the price for the sample so taken. The evidence of P.W.1, discloses that he expressed his intention of taking sample on the relevant day in question and thereafter alone he took the sample of Vanaspathi from the shop of the accused. He also paid the price for the sample so taken. These aspects of his evidence are amply corroborated by Exs.P2 and P3 bearing the signature of the accused. In such circumstances, it is rather perverse for the Magistrate to state that the non-preparation of a mahazar for taking sample, had tilted the case of the prosecution, to such an extent entitling the accused to the benefit of acquittal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would urge a fresh ground that Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act had not been complied with and the non-compliance is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Rule 22 of the Act contains a provision with regard to the quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst. In item 16 of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act, the quantity of sample of Vanaspathi to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis is 500 gms. As far as the case on hand is concerned, admittedly the total quantum of sample taken was only 500 gms. Only one-third of 500 gms. namely, roughly about 167 gms. of Vanaspathi had been sent to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. As such, it goes without saying that the sample of Vanaspathi sent in this case is far below the quantity as prescribed under Item 16 of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act. The question that falls for consideration is, whether this will tilt the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever. The object for prescribing the minimum quantity of the article of food to be sent for analysis is that the quantity so sent is sufficient for the purpose of analysis by the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst in this case had not at all stated that the quantity that was sent was not at all sufficient for analysis. If the quantity sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst was sufficient for analysis and caused no prejudice to the accused, then the mere fact of sending a lesser quantity than that prescribed would not vitiate the evidentiary value of report of the Public Analyst. If the quantity sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst was sufficient for analysis and caused no prejudice to the accused, then the mere fact of sending a lesser quantity than that prescribed would not vitiate the evidentiary value of report of the Public Analyst. At this juncture the learned Government Advocate would intrude and draw the attention of the Court to the provision contained in Rule 22(b) of the Rules framed under the Act which states that notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22 of the Rules, the quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst or the Director reports to the contrary. A cursory perusal of this Rule will make it abundantly clear that the quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered as sufficient unless the Public Analyst reports to the contrary. As already adverted to, the Public Analyst had not at all stated that the sample that was sent was not sufficient for the purpose of the analysis. In this view of the matter, even the new contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent merits little substance and therefore the same is rejected. In view of what has been stated above, it goes without saying that the judgment of the Court below was rather perverse and the same deserves to be set aside. The verdict of acquittal is, therefore, set aside. The appellant is found guilty of the charges framed against him. With regard to the imposition of sentence, I feel that the ends of justice would be met with by not disturbing the verdict of acquittal rendered by the Court below in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case in the sense that besides the appellant admittedly being a petty vendor dealing in groceries, the acquittal had been in force on and from the year 1983 and the agony and anguish of facing the case all along before various forums was also there. As such, the acquittal is not at all disturbed through the judgment of the Court below is set aside as being perverse.